CHAPTER 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Tt Philomena A. QIOMO EOSOPHY CHAPTER 2 INTRODUCTION Oseni Taiwo ANS) Provo 16 CHAPTER 3 INTRODUCTION To ETHICS ‘a! Peter Oni, PhD | Philomena Ojomo, PhD CHAPTER 4 A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE TO WESTERN TRADITIONAL EPISTEMOLOGY 39 AKANDE, M.A, PhD CHAPTER 5 METAPHYSICS AKOMOLAFE Mohammed Akinola, PhD 59 CHAPTER 6 INTRODUCTION TO WESTERN SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 74 U Kehinde .O. AMOS' PTER 7 ANINTRODUCTION TO SOME PROBLEMS IN THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 92 0.J. BALOGUN CHAPTER & 13 ETHICS Gone. Macaulay-Adeyelure, PhD CHAPTER 9 INTRODUCTION Mr see AND is SOME MEDIEVAL PHILOSOPHERS Kabir Olawale, PARAMOLE, PhD | PROF. Sivan OYEWESO, PhD ie, OVERVIEW ‘.CHAPTER 13 IBD AEALTH AND DISEASE REVISITED CHAPTER 14 NUTRIENTS: THE IMPORTANT VEHICLE IN HUMAN BIOCHEMISTRY AND PHYSIOLOGY Prof. ADU, 0.8. and BAKARE, R.1. CHAPTER 15 ICTION TO BIOSAFETY AND BIOSECURITY Abiodun A. Denloye|Akeeb O. Bola-Oyefolu Kabiru O. Akinyemi|Kafayat 0. Ajelara | Azeezat O. Alafia CHAPTER 16 ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION Prof. ADENIYI A.A. PhD|ALAFIA A. O. PhD CHAPTER 17 THE ECONOMIC ARCHITECTURE OF DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IN NIGERIA: GOVERNANCE PERSPECTIVE ibrohim. A.O. BAKARE (PhD.) CHAPTER 18 ALTERNTIVE MEDICINE:THE BASIC PRINCIPLES ‘Oluwa, OMOTESO Kk, mg IN THE UNIVERSITY BEHAVIOUR Olufemi PhD4 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO PHI Philomena A. OJOMO, PhD Meaning and Conceptions of Philosophy What is philosophy? This is a question as old as the discipline itself, when pesaaiaa to question received traditions and ask - What is truth? What is the good? Of whatis the world made?Why be moral? Is change real or illusory? What is the ideal form of government? What can we know? How can we know? Many offered various answers and accounts, trying to show what exactly it was that philosophers “did,” and why it was valuable. Plato, for example, tried to demonstrate how the practices and inquiries of his teacher, Socrates, were different from those of the rival sophists. Others in antiquity, such as Diogenes (Diogenesis Laertius 1980), offered their own descriptions of what philosophy was, and who practiced it. Philosophers still debate aboutthenatureand practice of philosophy into the present day. . Philosophy as Wisdom The word "philosophy" comes from two Greek words, philo/philein (to ‘love’) and sophia (‘wisdom’), which means “the love of wisdom", and "a philosopher may be thought of as one who pursues wisdom just as a lover pursues his beloved” (Munitz, i 1979). We have a sense of what love means, but what exactly is wisdom? : Greeks, wisdom "consists in the ability to draw meaning from i ae ’ experience wisely; to see beyond what merely meets the eye” (Oluwole, 1998). / person is wise, in other words, if he has a correct understanding about how t actually are and lives his life accordingly (Gardner 1999, 1). Wisdom, here, refers, not to an ordinary meaning of the word, but to the philosophical meaning. It "covers all: (both theoretical and practical) where intelligence cap be exercised or (Uduigwomen, 1992; 2).For the Greeks,A. OJOMO, PhD the philosopher is literally ‘a lover of wisdom’, someone who has committed his or her life to thedifficult task of clarifying and understanding the universe and human existence, and who unwilling to abide by traditional dogmas and beliefs undertakes the critical and rational evaluation of his or her experiences (Nyong 1996, 4). is that there is difference between philosophical wisdom and ordinary ofthe word. Philosophical wisdom is the pursuit of truth, and not the word of . Similarly, the difference between ordinary questioning and philosophical jing is, in part, that philosophy attempts to examine our ordinary questions ina more systematic and disciplined way. (Jason 2007, 2). This questioning has continued to the present time, in various forms. Philosophy as Wonder Wonder is the root from which philosophy arises Both Plato and Aristotle argue that philosophy begins in ordinary wonder, when people look at the world around them, and inquire about its origins and nature, and their place and functioning therein. (Jasor 2007, 2). As Pieper notes: ] Philosophizing means distancing oneself, not from the things of everyday Ii but from their common interpretations, from the prevailing valuations giv these things. And this distancing takes place, not on the basis of any decision: stand out, to think “differently” from the many, but because, suddenly, things have acquired a new physiognomy. It is just this state of affairs, that that the more profound physiognomy of the real becomes perceivable in manipulate things of everyday life (and not in the realm of “essences,” disti from the “everyday” or whatever one chooses to call it); that is, thi extraordinary, that which is no longer self-evident concerning these opposes itself to our gaze, which is directed towards the things encou! everyday experience—itis just this state of affairs that corresponds to. event in which one has always recognized, as constituting the ori philosophy—wonder (Pieper 2006, 56).INTRODUCTION To PHILosopny Whatis meant by ‘wonder’? According to Pieper: The meaning of wonder lies in the experience that the world is more profound, more commodious, and more mysterious than it appears to our everyday understanding. The inner intentionality of wonder is fulfilled in the development of the sense of mystery. This inner directionality does not aim at raising doubt but at awakening the knowledge that Being as Being is incomprehensible and mysterious—that Being is itself a mystery in the authentic sense, not sheer impassibility, not absurdity, not even genuine ‘obscurity. Mystery implies, rather, that a reality is for this reason incomprehensible, namely, that its light is unquenchable, unfathomable, and inexhaustible. This is what the person in wonder actually experiences. ( Pieper 2006, 59-60). the world that is mystical, but that it exists" (1969, 644). Wonder, in short, is the Tealization that our ordinary understanding and sense of the world does not capture the totality of the reality of the world. Furthermore, wonder can embrace a religious , __ dimension, but “religious” understood broadly: religious, not only in the sense that F | Contributing to the same subject-matter, Wittgenstein says: “It is not how things are in Coming out of the Thomistic tradition, articulates, but it also can embrace a ‘general awe at the world, suchas Russell expresses (Jason 2007, 3). D up: philosophy begins in wonder. Wonder realizes that the ordinary bourgeois tions, ideas, and understandings that we have received, based on utility, and conformity, are not the totality of what is, nor do they capture the nplexity of the world and all that is therein. Wonder questions, but it doubt or destroy, It may reject a bad, incomplete, naive, or childish OF understanding, but only so that it may discover, even if only version of that same concept, idea, or understanding. Thus, it is philosophical wonder, in questioning received views or y inimical to, or destructive of, those views or traditions aintaining control and power over others, it may seem J. Now, we shall discuss different conceptions physics, episterpalogy, ethics, and logic) Ultimate Reality Aches of philosophy. It is defined as thePhilomena a, O10M0, Pho - Study of reality, metaphysics, Alta in Beneral, is a theory about what really exist, Through Some ofthe questions thar el with nature of existence, being andthe wr Ukimate realty single oy neabhsis deals with are: What iultimate realty? Isthe transcendent? Does ted any Can reality be grasped by the senses or ig it body? Does the work ee 2"? How does the incorporeal mind affect the physi Why is there somert ga st Outside the mind? What is the meaning and purpose of ite things exist-whatin ee ethine? Is there a God (or many gods, or no god at alli reflection a : 's their objective nature? etc. Metaphysic therefore is the philosophic 'e Nature of reality (Nyong, 1996;6). As a,esult of the importance of the Auestions addressed by metaphysics, it was interchangeable for philosophy so mucho that the early philosophers were called metaphysicians (Gary 2010, 30) Epistemology: Philosophy as the Quest for Truth From the ambience of epistemology, philosophy has been defined as the quest for truth and knowledge. Pythagoras defines philosophy as the search for truth."The Philosopher seeks for truth. The aim of philosophy, however, is not this truth or that truth, my truth or your truth, but “The Truth”. The truth that philosophy searches forisa truth that applies to all people at all times" (Gardner 1999, 1). Philosophy, through epistemology, studies the nature and possibility of knowledge. Among the questions that epistemology deals with are: What is knowledge? Is knowledge acquired exclusively through the senses or by some other means? How do we know that what we perceive through oursensesis correct? Ethics: Philosophyasthe Quest for Morality Ethics is an important branch of philosophy. Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, to the problems of the morality of man". It examines the right and wrong of 1s (Nyong, 1996: 7). Asa philosophical discipline, it originated in ancient ago. Socrates and a group of teachers from ancient Athens known as ns itself with discovering standard or system one may use in 9 is good. Some of the questions raised in the field of ethics are: od life, Why should | be moral? What is obligation? What is ‘standards of right and wrong? Are moral values absolute th questions it is obvious that “morality is about real of Iv pacts a. |INTRODUCTION To PaILosoPaY (Imafidon & Bewaji, 2014: xv). Philosophy, aspect of human life and human endeavor, t! todo. through ethics, seeks to decipher in every hat which we “ought to” do and “ought not” Logic: Philosophy as Critical Thinking Philosophy from the root of logic is the study of the principles of right reasoning. Logicis : basic tool that philosophers use to investigate reality. Among the questions raised a gic are; first, what makes an argument valid or invalid, second, what is a sound _ argument? The cutting edge of reason is logic. This is because rational thinking is logical thinking; thinking that avoids making unjustifiable assumptions as it advances through clear, logical steps that follow necessarily from one another. Logic involves deducing conclusions from premises and identifying contradictions, or lack of them, in belief and arguments. Philosophy as Conceptual Analysis Philosophy is also about analysis of concepts, statements and assertions in our quest for the truth. William Charlton (1991: 5) itemises the following as the chief topics which analytical philosophers consider: (1) things basic to logic and mathematics: existence, truth and number; (2) things basic to physical science: time, change and causation; (3) good and evil, the varieties of them (virtue, beauty etc.) and the nature of the difference between them; (4) mental processes, states and dispositions, especially the most general notions of belief, desire, skill, purpose and self-awareness or consciousness. The goal of analytical philosophers, he opines, it "to gain insight" into the above-listed topics through “logic, conceptual and linguistics analysis". re, the philosopher's task is to analyse, clarify and understand concepts and To effectively do this it utilizes the vital tool of logic and critical analysis. Marx(1977: 30) have argued that analysis of concepts have merely left d without showing us howto change it. and Practice 7 taphysics, ethics, epistemology, etc)? Kar! Mar sev ito understand the world but to change it. He says iWorldinvarioas ways; the point, however, Isto the task of philosophy is to change the worldPhilomena A. Q10Mo, Pho through Science, politics » &tc. Philosophy should not Stop at the level of the, there should be Unity of theory an, Practice withou ractice, doy ‘OY, Father, i Practice. This is because, while "thee ec (Marx, 1872; 21). The Point here, i; “trine and skills are inseparable Conclusion IM conclusion, what is the value of philoso, Succintly, philosophy sh rather than the answers can be verified as absoly over philosophical ans Possible; stretch our in Of the virus of dogmati phy? Why should we study Philosophy? py uld be studied primarily for the questions that — it proffers since no given answer to on tely right. As such, philosophical questions a = le 'wers because they broaden our horizon of wi cia cure.us tellectual imagination beyond its marginal elastic . Eeecores bly confronted by ia (Russell, 1969: 5). Finally, since we are ala ie oe these questions in our daily living and we cannot help id by all (Stumpf, Predilection of wanting to know; philosophy Ought to be studied by 1993:3). bat Yih aaaINTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY References Charlton, W. (1992), The Analytic Ambition: An Introduction to Philosophy, Cambridge: Basil Blackwell Inc. Diogenes, L. (1980), Lives of Eminent Philosophers. 2 Volumes. Trans. R.D. Hicks. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Gardner, F. Sophia omni (1999), Sophia project (philosophy archives “what is philosophy, anyway?” Gary, C. (2010). Howto bea philosopher. British library cataloguing-in-publication Data. Hyland, D.A, (2004),Questioning Platonism: Continental Interpretations of Plato, Albany: Suny Press. Imafidon, E & Bewaji, J. (2014), Ontologized Ethics: New Essays In African Meta-Ethics, New York: Lexington Kaufman, D.A. (2006), Knowledge, Wisdom, and the Philosopher, Philosophy 81(1), 129-151. Marx, K. (1872), Capital, Vol. Marx, K. (1977), Selected Works, Vol. 1, Moscow: Progress Publishers Munitz, M. K. (1979), The Ways of Philosophy, New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. Nyong, D. (1996), Rudiments of Philosophy and Logic, Lagos-Nigeria: Obaroh & Ogbinaka Publishers Ltd. Pellegrin, P. (2000), Physics. Tr. S. Stewart and J. Pucci. In Greek thought: Guide to Classical Knowledge. Ed. J. Brunschvig and G.E.R. Lloyd. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Peperzak, A.T. (2006),Thinking: From Solitude to Dialogue and Contemplation, New York: Fordham University Press. Pieper, J. (2006),"What does it mean to Philosophize? Four lectures" infor the Love of Wisdom: Essays on the Nature of Philosophy Tr. R. Wasserman, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 27-80 Russell, B. (1969), 'The Value of Philosophy" in The Problems of Philosophy, New York Oxford University Press Stumpf, S. (1993), Elements of Philosophy: An Introduction, New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Uduigwomen, A, F,(1992), Philosophy of Science, ligeria: Vatalis Book Wittgenstein, L (1969), Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Tr, D.F. Pears &.F: McGuinness, New York: Humanities Press, ’ be—______ CHAPTER 2 ————_____* TRODUCTION TO LOGIC Oseni Taiwo AFISI, PhD Introduction Logic is a basic tool of Philosophy. Philosophy is about thinking. Logic is a technic of Freasoning or critical thinking. Thinking is a fundamental feature of humanity. In other words, every human being has the ability to think. However, it is NOT all human beings that have the Capacity for critical thinking. While the ability to think is taking for granted sa mere human natural trait to, for example, think about what to eat, what to wear, or, what to drink; the capacity for critical thinking is a more complex phenomenon. The Capacity for critical thinking requires a deep reflective process of human rational cognition beyond the everyday pedestrian use of the brain function. The Capacity for critical thinking helps in critically reflecting on issues in order to adequately proffer systematic ways to solving technical problems. Critical thinking is the systematic ‘senses in which the term logic is often used, However, in its strictest, _ ind professional sense, logic is considered as the basic principles, techniques Sierat dure reasoning for distinguishing between good (correct) and bad ments. The aim of the study of Logic is to discover and make nbeu st arguments, and to sort good argumentsDr. Oseni Taiwo AFISi Arguments, Premises and Conclusion From the above definition of logic we will discover that there is a tool that logic uses in order to become systematic. This tool is called arguments. In everyday sense, an arguments considered a quarrel between two people or z groups of people. However in logic, an argument is a set of propositions (statements) in Which the premises are used to support the conclusion. The conclusion is derived from the premises. Arguments consist of premises and a conclusion. Premises are set of statements in an argument. The conclusion is also a statement separated from the premises with a conclusion indicator. However, the conclusion is derived from the premises. Any statement, whether a premise or a conclusion, is referred to as a proposition. Allarguments are either valid or invalid, and either sound or unsound. For an argument to be valid, its premises must be true, then its conclusion cannot be false, Such an argumentis said to be sound. There are commonly two types of arguments: i. Deductive Arguments ii. Inductive Arguments Adeductive argument is one in which its premises proceed from general situations | to arrive at its conclusion in particular instances. Such an argument is considered a valid argument if its premises lead successfully toa conclusion. . Below is an example of 4 deductive argument: All Human Beings are Mortal ~ Premise 1 Socrates isa Human Being - Premise 2 e - Conclusion Therefore, Socrates is Mortal In inductive arguments, the premises proceed from particular instances to conclusion of general situations. The strength of an inductive grgument is on a degree ofBelowis an example of an indus ictive argument: Socrates is wise 3 -Premise 1 Socrates is a Scholar ~Premise 2 Therefore, all Scholars are wise -Conclusion While deductive arguments are either valid or invalid, inductive arguments cannot | said to be valid or invalid. Although it cannot be absolutely claimed that the pret and conclusions of deductive arguments are always necessarily true, they can onl Said to be valid or invalid, A deductive argument is valid if it is such that its premises frue, then its conclusion cannot be false. However, there is an inductive leap inductive arguments which involves some degree of probability between the premises and the conclusion. Arguments, Containing Simple and Compound Propositions Propositions can be categorized into two kinds: simple and compound. A simple Proposition does not contain any other proposition as a component part. A compound Proposition contains another proposition or sets of propositions as component parts, For example, “the boy is good’ is a simple proposition. It is regarded as simple ber 3 the proposition does not contain any other sets of propositions adjoining them with connectives. The example, “if you are going to Canada then you need a visa” isa compound proposition. Two propositions are joined together with a logical connective “then”. " Arguments involving Relational Propositions ere are three characteristics of relational propositions. These include: Symi and Reflexivity. Each one of these characterizes also has three sub j, the subdivisions are, “symmetrical”, “asymmetrical” . For Transitivity, the sub-divisions are, “transitive”, “Or. Oseni Taiwo AFIS} determine the validity or invalidity of these propositions. There are two fundamental questions that need to be raised in every argument involving relational propositions. The first question is: Is it valid or invalid? The second question is: Why is it valid or invalid? (Bello 2006: 6) CHARACTERISTICS OF RELATIONS ‘Symmetry ‘As earlier stated, Symmetry as a characteristic of relation is sub-divided into symmetrical, asymmetrical or non-symmetrical. Arelation is symmetrical ifit is such that ifa person, place or thing ‘A’ has the relation to another person, place, or thing 'B', then 'B' must have the same relation to 'A’, Where relation ‘is the contemporary of' is symmetrical. Other symmetrical relations are ‘isthe cousin of’, 'it is the friend of, 'is the mate of’, 'is the spouse of’ and ‘is the colleague of" (Bello 2006: 7). Arelation is asymmetrical if it is such an entity where ‘A’ has the relation to another entity 'B', then 'B' cannot have the relation to ‘A’. 'The relation ‘can outrun’ is an asymmetrical relation. Other asymmetrical relations include ‘is the father of’, is the mother of, 'is the employer of ‘is the superior of’ and 'sricher than’ (Bello 2006:7). Arelation is non-symmetrical ifis neither symmetrical nor asymmetrical. That is to say, a relation is non-symmetrical if it is such that if an entity ‘A’ has the relation to another entity 'B' then 'B may or may not have the relation ‘A’. The relations ‘is the sister of, "is F the brother of", ‘hates’, ‘loves’, ‘despises’ and ‘trusts’ are all non-symmetrical (Bello e 2006: 7). metrical and asymmetrical above we will see that le our asymmetrical argument is invalid. The rent is valid because the relation ‘is the nt. Onthe If we consider the arguments in sym our symmetrical argument is valid, whil reason is simple, the symmetrical argum' contemporary of’ isa symmetrical relation, and itisusedas such n the areume! ~ other hand, the asymmetrical arguments is invalid because the relation ‘can outrun’ isINTRODUCTION TO LOGIC asymmetrical but itis used in the argument as ifit is a symmetrical relation (Bello 2006. 7). Transitivity For transitivity, a relation may he transitive, intransitive or non-transitive. A relation is transitive ifitis such that if an entity'A’ has the relation toa second entity’B’, and'B’ has the relation to a third entity'C’, then ‘A’ must have the relation to 'C’. The relations fg younger than’, 'is taller than’, 'is equal to’. is the same age as’ and ‘has the same colour of skin as' are all transitive (Bello 2006: 7). Arelation is intransitive if it is such that if an entity ‘A’ has the relation to another entity 8! and '8' has the same relation to another entity 'C’, then 'A' cannot have the relation to 'C’. The relations ‘is the father of', is the mother of' and ‘is the uncle of' are intransitive (Bello 2006: 7). A relation is non-transitive if it is such that if an entity 'A’ has the relation to another entity 'B', and 'B' has the relation to a third entity 'C’, then 'A' may or may not have to relation to 'C’. ‘Loves’, ‘isthe friend or, ‘despises’, ‘hates’, 'is the brother of", ‘is the sister of and ‘is jealous of are all non-transitive relations (Bello 2006: 7). Reflexivity A relation is reflexive if it is such that an entity ‘A’ must have the relation to itself. The ses pyre is identical with’, 'has the same colour of hair as’, ‘has the same and 'has the same weight as' are all reflexive relations (Bello 2006: 7).Dr. Oseni Taiwo AFIS} What the purpose of arguments involving relational Propositions underscore, as earlier stated, is to test for validity or invalidity. We simply undertake this process by: 1. Identify the relation inthe argument 2, Determine the characteristics or attributes of the relation. 3, Determine which particular characteristic or attribute is relevant to the use of the relation in the argument. ¢ 4, Determine if the relation is properly used in the argument. If it is, then the argumentis valid; ifitis not, then the arguments not valid. (Bello 2006: 8). SYMBOLS OF LOGICAL CONNECTIVES In logic, there are special symbols of logical connective. These symbols are standard. These symbols include: (1) Conjunction (2) Disjunction (3) Material Implication/conditional (4) Bi-conditional or Equivalence (5) Negation Conjunction: The word for conjunction is “AND”, andthe symbol for it is DOT written as “* The conjunction is used to conjoin two simple propositions to form one complex * Proposition: . Afisi came to school today ° Afisi taught logic today s can be conjoined to as: Afisitaught logic today (Q). bol for is “v”. Two simple und proposition (Ogunkoya &In this case, there is no possibility of passing and failing both at the same: either ofthe two. Material Implication/Conditional: The word for material implication is. the symbol for it is “2”, In a proposition, the material implication reveals a conditionality in such a way that whenever the ANTECEDENT proposition is then the CONSEQUENT proposition follows. These compound propositions distributed such that the ANTECEDENT proposition is preceded by an “If, whil CONSEQUENT proposition is preceded by a “then”. For example: Ae * “Ada wastired yesterday” * Adasleptheavily yesterday” These two simple propositions can be conjoined to as . “If Ada was tired yesterday, then she must have slept heavily yesterday”, 4 If Ada was tired yesterday is the antecedent while then she must have slept! the consequent. This propositional operator is represented with the ho! thus the proposition readsas “PQ” Bi-conditional/ Equivalence: The words for Bi-conditional is “If and. only if”, a symbol is equivalence “=”. Example: “Taiwo slept heavily yesterday if and only if Taiwo was tired” “P=Q”, impliestwo this: . If Taiwo slept heavily yesterday, then Taiwo musthaveb fTaiwo was tired yesterday, then Taiwo must! have slept Negation: The word for negation is “NOT”, and ones with the confirItis NOT raining ¢ P) TRUTH TABLE t A truth table is a graphic representation of arguments to display all possible combination of truth values. A truth table is used to define truth-functional connectives and to test the validity or invalidity of arguments (Copi and Cohen 2002: 645). Having considered the symbols of logical connectives we shall check the conditions under which they can be expressed using the truth table. Conjunction Rule: The conjunction is true when both conjuncts are true, but false in all other cases. Q i F 7 FE isjuncts are true or one of them is true, but ‘and the Consequent is false, 6 seri: aalae lalate as alia INMRODUCTION To LOGIE Rule: The negation is such that a proposition becomes false when the corres Propositions true, and vice versa To determine the validity or invalidity of an argument using the truth table, Premises and the conclusion can have all possibly different values of true and make the argument valid. However, we have values of true premises and a Conclusion in any of the rows in the table, the argument becomes invalid. Exercises: Use truth tables to determine the validity or inviaity of each of the following argument forms: 1. pvq 2p Bq 3.(p Bq) . (p Br) Pp qQp Pp % i pvq have CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS Categorical propositions are about classes or categories. There are usually two classes, the subject (S) and the predicate (P). There are four different standard forms of categorical propositions. 1 Alllawyers are liars (A) Universal Affirmative ‘All Sis P* 2. No lawyers are liars (E) Universal Negative ‘No SisP" 3. Somelawyersareliars (|) Particular Affirmative ‘Some SisP" 4. Some lawyers are not liars (0) particular Negative ‘SomeSisnotP' For the ‘A’ proposition, “All lawyers are liars” there are two classes; theelass of al lawyers (S) and the class of all liars (P). This means that the first class is included or — contained in the second. Ber For the 'E' proposition, “No lawyers are liars” the first cla the second (P), which is to say,br Oseni Taiwo AFIS! lawyers universally but only to some members of that class. A particular negative proposition says that at least one member of the class designated by the subject termis excluded from the whole of the class designated by the predicate term. CATEGORICALSYLLOGISMS Asyllogism comprises of two premises and a conclusion. The conclusion can be inferred from two premises. A categorical syllogism is a deductive argument that consists of three propositions. Below is an example of a categorical syllogism: No Doctors are Nurses, Some Technologists are Nurses. Therefore some Technologists are not Doctors There are three terms that appear in a categorical syllogism, each of which occurs in exactly two of the constituent propositions (Copi and Cohen 2002: 217). These three terms are: Major, Minor and Middle Terms. Major, Minor, and Middle Terms In order to identify the terms of the syllogism, we must first start with the conclusion. Twoterms, subject and predicate, appear in the conclusion out of the threetermsinthe syllogism. The major termis the predicate of the conclusion ofa syllogism. ‘The minortermsis the subjectof the conclusion of a syllogism. The middle term is the term which does not occur in the conclusion, but appears intheper : sees INTRODUCTION TO LOGIE: Mood To get the mood of a standard-form syllogism, we will identify each ce proposition by what letter (A, E, |, oF 0) of the standard-form Refe! proposition represents. We will have to write out the mood by repres of the three categorical proposition by what they stand for. At the Bell exercise the mood will written as three letters, ina specific order. Finding the mood of the above syllogism: cor The major premise is an E proposition The minor premise is an | proposition Eke The conclusion is an O proposition The mood of the syllogism is E10 (Copi and Cohen 2002: 217). 4 A Figure ° To find the figure of a categorical syllogism, we must use the st syllogism format. The format is of four possible different figures. schematized in the following array, where only the relative positions off are shown, and reference to mood is suppressed by not represent quantifiers or copulas: MP P-M M-P SP SP SP First Figure Second Figure Third Figure Figure In every standard-form syllogism one is expected to name the middle terms; the mood and the figure. ~~ Exercises: Find the major, minor and middle terms of the foll the mood and the figure: 1. Allbankers are accountants rs ntants Some insurers are bankerset ———————— CHAPTER 3 INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS Peter Oni, PhD | Philomena Ojomo, PhD Introduction In every society, human beings relate with one another. These relatio behaviours are influenced by people's culture, history, beliefs and values which n in individual's conducts and comportments on daily basis. The history of phil records and confirms this approach to life through basic and fundamental q great minds such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle asked themselves in their own’ The questions are: how do live a good life? Why must | live a moral life? What do? How should | be? Answers to these questions are philosophical and ethical in nature. Consequently, this study will examine the nature and m ethics, its sources and the relationship between ethics and morality. In ad explore the branches of ethics and some ethical theories. It will also explain Fe African ethics. geste biPeter Oni, PRO [Philomena Ojomo, Pho ethics, moral philoso} whose focus is the right or wrong of our actions, the nature of morality and types of relationships human beings ought to establish wit! assigned to moral philosophy and ethics are simila use the terms interchangeably, 'h one another. Basically, the meaning , Though contemporary philosophers euesieauhee eee morality ta its roots in Latin as mos ormoralis and ethics. ;m » ethos or ethikos, “Both of them mean behaviour, habit, conduct or custom’. Meanwhile a keen look at the etymological terms of morality and ethics reveals a slight difference in their meanings. The former means “the way people are”, while the latter means “the way things should be.” Ethics and morality While morality refers to principles or rules of conducts that govern an individual's life or the society, ethics is the study of morality. It is the systematic study of moral concepts, moral principles and theories’. When an individual or a group of persons start by analyzing and ponder on moral standards or norms that govern human conducts, they are doing ethics. Ethics aims at developing standards of human conducts; standards we fee| are reasonable enough and justifiable to explain our actions. In his work, Systematic Theology, James William McClendon gives a clear picture of what morality and ethics are. He writes: Morals or morality comes from the Latin word, mos, meaning custom or usage, while ethics comes from the k word ethos, whose meaningis roughly the same. Soit as earlier, these two words Gree is hardly surprising that today, are often used interchangeably. When a distinction is made, is” nowadays refers to actual human conduct with ight and wrong, good and evil. “Ethics” referstoa theoretical overview of morality, atheory or system or code. In this sense, our morality is the concrete human reality that rom day to day, while ethics is an academicyiew we live out fi gained by taking a step back and analyzing or theorizing about any morality. “moral regard toriWhy do we study ethics? Ethics is unavoidable. It is a Part of us, it dwells in us. Ethics gives ht Potentials to develop their skills, to design and conceive their values, The @thics establishes the justification of our actions and guides them. In the study of ethics aims at giving one the relevant dispositions for a sound mo Provides a reasonable basis for our interactions with others. The study of: equips one with the intellectual capacity to study, question other peoples’ va Put them side by side with one's world view. There is no culture; there are without cultural norms. and values. The study of ethics enlightens one on the plurality of cultures and knowledg Plays @ critical role in an individual's professional life, skills and career deve! Ethics as the study of moral norms is a substantial and major component ofan life. As a matter of fact, an ethical being is a free, moral and rational b relevance of ethics goes beyond the discipline as a branch of philo disciplines and fields of study today, have their own norms and principles guic Practices. For instance, there are medical ethics, ethics of journalism, Business ethics, and environmental ethics, among others. Sources of Ethics The development of Western ethics originated from two major sources fn Greek and the Judeo-Christian. Albert Denise Peterfreund in his work Great in Ethics writes: In the Greek tradition, ethics was conceived as relating t the “good life.”Inquiry was directed toward discover characteristics of the happiest life and the achieving it enliven the writings of th Philosophers. A quite different orientation egeaoog i—_ a "Peter Oni, PRD [Philomena Ojomo, PhO substance of morality. These two influences are FePresented in a major cleavage between those theories who regard duty and the right as the primary ethical concepts and those who view happiness and the good life asthe fundamental concerns of ethics." These traditions account for most theories in Western ethics such as Utilitarian ethics, Deontological ethics and Virtue Ethics among others. However, with the development fnew perceptions of the Western world and different world views, otherhistorical and cultural factors in human communities contributed to shape new ethical ideas and theories in Western civilizations. It is worthy of note that other sources or traditions of ethics can be found in African and Asia intellectual cultures, civilizations and| heritages. Branches of Ethics Ethies as a branch of philosophy subdivided into three parts that are: Metaethics, Normative Ethics-and Empirical or Descriptive Ethics. We shall examine these three Parts one after the other. Meta-ethics Meta-ethics is also known as analytic ethics. It is a branch of ethics that analyses ethical terms. Meta-ethics focuses on the search for the meaning of some key terms used in making ethical statements. Some of the terms meta-ethics analyses include: good, bad, fight, wrong, evil, obligations, duty, principle, moral, immoral, amoral among others.“Meta-ethics basically interrogates ethical statements and seeks to understand what we mean, when for instance we say an action is good or bad”. How do we definea "good or a bad action? What precisely do we mean when we say an action is good or ? Answers to these questions had defined different meta-ethical schools of from the ancient to the contemporary periods in philosophy. The main ions in meta-ethics are naturalism or ethical naturalism and anti-naturalism or cal non naturalism. Ethics ative Ethics is the branch of ethics that focuses on the norms, standards or “Ht oweINTRODUCTION To ETHICS It is “the ethical st They prescribe and is the moral standar Moral 2 norm? A moral standard or moral norm is the Principle that guides hury actions. These guiding principles are the focus of ‘normative ethics, Normative aims at bringing order and consistency into our ethical actions and beliefs. It re} them to one another and in the same manner to universal principles from which tl have their validity and justification as guide for our actions, conduct and beh: Normative ethics constructs ethical theories based on valid moral principles. Its ai building “ethical systems” *inWestern ethics, there are theories that attempt to ansy fundamental ethical questions in normative ethics. jorms of ma =e conduct”.‘Norms are Prescription for actions. ©. The basic question of normative ethics is: What These theories are hedonism, egoism, altruism, utilitarianism, the catego imperative, natural law theory, virtue ethics among others. Empirical or Descriptive ethics Empirical or Descriptive ethics is by its function factual, concrete and applied, It branch of ethics that examines-the moral codes of various societies. Descripti Empirical ethics extracts areas of similarities and differences in its study of morale indifferent societies and cultures. As a matter of fact, it requires serious field work: aim of Descriptive ethics is to ascertain the universal value of the ethical codes discover “the nature of morality”."Descriptive ethics is practical and its o one desirous to study ethics. How are these theories two broad ways by which ethical theories are studical egoism preaches actions which actions aimed at one self-interest, mn of an action and the consequenceson This approach focuses on themes and consequences are in the utilitarianism emphasizes the a large number including my concepts specific to ethical approach studies ethics from the historical standpoint. It groups chronologically in time and space. The historical approach examines ethics In this Perspective, they are classical or ancient, medieval, modern and Sthical theories. The historical approach to ethics gives a more approach to its study. For example, it studies ethical theories such as Plato's, 's, the cynics’ or the stoics’ ethical theory among others. These theories are ‘studied in an orderly manner Strictly following the two criteria of time and space. j "Considering the size ofthis paper, we choose the systematic approach to present some "Selected ethical theories. The justification of the choice is thet this approach gives a synoptic and summarized view of ethics and encompasses many ethicists under a _ theme or concept. F et alist Ethical Theories “Consequentialist ethical theories are also referred to as teleological theories. comes from teleology meaning (the study of end causes). The root telosin Greek in its origin and it means end, goal or Purpose.”Consequentialist consider an ethically good action to be one that produces good "Whereas bad actions produce bad consequences. Philosophers or who share these views are called consequentialists. Consequentialist inethics are among others egoism, utilitarianism with different, subsets. They the fact that a good action produces good consequences while a bad action bad consequences. However, consequentialists differ on the scope of the 25 of human actions and the nature of “good”, What is termed as good \swering this question, two schools of thought are prominent among ist theories. They are Ethical egoism and Utilitarianism. ni rel ee eeest alone. Anything short of that do 's about values and Not facts. Ethical e; Personal interestrather it prescribes egoism ji seek his es Not count or exist for -goism does not say that ‘ophers such as Epicurus (341 Machiavelli, Hobbes (1588-1679), Nietzsche (1844-1900), Ayn Rand andthe. Adam. Smith(1723-1790) are associated with egoism in different capacities,” Utilitarianism is an ethical theory and the central principle is the principle of utili Principle of utility advocates that one should act always to promote the amount of satisfaction and the least amount of dissatisfaction for the Breates of people. There are different understandings of the Principle of util utiticarians Precisely when it comes to interpret satisfaction. Some utilitaria ns others know it as pleasure. Indeed, utilitarianism as a theory David Hume (1711-1776). It was systematically detailed -1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). In interpreting thar considers few things such as:“intensity ofpeter Oni, PhO [Philomena Ojomo, Pho containedin Mill's formulation of utility, They are: Actions are to be justified as ri as right o ; consequences ight or wrone solely by virtue of their When assessing consequences, the only thi amount , the only thing that matters happiness or unhappiness thatis caused a . Each person's happiness is equally important. The idea of equality brought in by Mill differentiates utilitarianism from, egoism or altruism which privileges the happiness of the self or the other. The aim of utilitarianism is to promote happiness and reduce unhappiness or suffering in the world. Meanwhile, the promotion of happiness is seen differently by utilitarians who are divided into two groups namely: the “act utilitarianism “ and the “rule utilitarianism”. The proponents of “act utilitarianism” say whenever people must decide what to do, they ought perform that act bringing about the greatest possible balance of intrinsic good over intrinsic evil. The “rule utilitarianism” preaches something different. It recommends following in any action, the moral rule that would produce the greatest happiness. * Non-Consequentialist Theories Non consequential ethical theories are normative theories that see no relevance’ inthe consequences of action. Non-consequential theories do not focus an the outcome of 7 mine or our actions, rather they focus on duties, obligations, character traits, individual rights, re and social contracts. We shall present in a concise form some non- laws of natut ok = new shape rom the works of lzabeth Anscombe catINTRODUCTION To ETHICS: law is that good is to be done and pursued, and evil should be avoided, that this principle is built in every human being naturally.” Probably the most popular and attractive of the non- consequential tt Scholars is Immanuel Kant's theory of categorical imperative. Kant (1724-3 his moral principle, the categorical imperative. He developed the Princip Gifferent ways. The first is the formula of universal law and the second, the fo n the end in itself. Immanuel Kant's theoryis based on individual moral autono categorical imperative which comprises the ethical principles of univer respect for persons. The Social Contract Theory The social contract theory explains what the Purpose of the state is and the nat morality. The principal advocates of this theory are: Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), Locke (1632-1704), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) among others. fundamental principle of this theory is that, moral rules are the basis of commur they desire to live together in Peace. By their nature, human beings are called t together and this must be based on the Principle of agreement on the rules of living. Some contemporary American contractarians retouched the theory by into ita political dimension. They are John Rawls and Robert Nozick. ” African Traditional Ethics This segment of the chapter is dedicated to African Traditional ethics. By we mean the African societies before the advent of colonialism, Just Philosophy, African ethics has suffered the biases and mit characterized African philosophy at inception, Until recently there: on what African ethics portends. In order to fill in the gap and view that African ethics isa religious ethics, contemporary: present ‘view o i ia.Peter Oni, PhD | Philomena Ojomo, Pho thought about morality revolve essentially around the notion. of i character. ul the constant, usual action of a person, the feature one is iventif pie: ce a fact, character, we mean, individual character is one of the. basic components of Afric - ethics. Character is the criterion through which individuals in most African cultures are morally assessed. Froman individual's character, all his acti standpoint, African ethics stands to be a character. constitutes the basis of the African moral life." perspective, an individual's character shows his capa ‘ons are evaluated, From this -based ethics as character Meanwhile, from a pragmatic city to attain the moral status of a person or not. So, the status of person in African ethics is intrinsically linked to good character. Among the Yoruba, as Segun Gbadegesin notes: “a man of good character is known as eniyan.”” ifeanyi Menkiti identifies that status of life as “awidened maturity 2” Hence, to be a person in African Traditional ethics is to display and Practiceprinciples that incorporate and exhibit one’s commitment to communal life. A. Person is not just a human being; he is someone who fuses into his. daily responsibilities, social obligations. The individual being dissolves into the social being. This view is expressed by Kenneth Kaunda™ who opines that human beings are wrapped up together in the bundle of life. A bond exists between me and other human beings. Human beings are defined by the web of relationships they build among themselves. In these relationships, individual human beings display traits of character- values such as hospitality, humility and altruism that consolidate and establish the person and human in them. As such African humanism and precisely Africanethicsisa social and not and individualistic ethics. of ethical sense.’ ee and the knowledge of ethics play a critical role in the life: of as well as the society. The study of ethics contributes greatly toan’ n deepens in him the understanding of the goal of life. Ethics gives privilege to look at life critically, evaluate one’s actions and deter which human beings relate with one another with clearCHAPTER 4 A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE WESTERN TRADITIONAL EDITED AKANDE, M.A, PhD 1.0 Introduction This chapter will introduce certain developments in Western epistemology. There is no analysis of knowledge that will not involve theories of justification and truth. Also, every analysis and discussion on knowledge must take into consideration the sceptic challenge that has pervaded Western epistemology over the centuries. It is for these reasons that this chapter shall address theories of justification, truth and traditional conception of knowledge which are attempts to meet the challenge of scepticism. 1.1 Opening Remarks on Epistemology asa Branch of Philosophy in the quest for certainty and indubitable knowledge, philosophers and contemporary) discovered the need to be sure ab f and i ieeeIn the ancient Greece, the sophists who were the contemporaries of Socrates Wer, said to deny the existence of truth and knowledge; yet they placed a Price 4 knowledge acquisition. It seems contradictory to do this However, the solution jay , their belief that knowledge is subjective rather than objective. They considered truth law, and knowledge as Possible only from the perspective of a culture, group or an individual. To them our sources of knowledge are unreliable to the extent that they provide us with false, inadequate, or confused ideas. The human five senses and the human mind, though do provide us with truth, some of the time they present us with falsity. And human beings do not have independent source of verifying the information provided. Any attempt to rely on only experience will lead us to circularity, as David Hume Projected in his Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding. In order to save epistemology, one willneed to determine how reliable or what degree of reliability can be given to both the internal andthe external senses. The word epistemology is coined from two Greek words “episteme” which means knowledge and “logos” which means idea or reason. From this coinage, epistemology mean the ideas or reasons behind knowledge, or put simply, it is the study of of knowledge. This definition typifies what Confucius is reported ti go. when he submits that: “when you know a thing, to hold not know it; to hold that you do not know it, this is | lologists’ major tasks are to define uch questions as “whatisthe the origin of the universe?” Is the lated a5 “Can we know i/ t e affinityn metaphysics and epistemology is one of the imes confused with the concept of knowledge. pt because it represents the correct description Of truth and knowledge are sometimes used correct description of reality or event can be taken to be may be ‘correct description’ knowledge is more than a 2s being able to provide the underlying reason how the id. Plato through Socrates attests to this when he writes gs he may claim ignorance about but not the claim that there ledge and true opinion (Plato, 1956:22) become knowledge must first be true. Since nothing can be iption of reality. However, it is not all true propositions in the course of the study of Gettier's work that he lic agent arrives at a true validly deducted proposition lieving it. The contention against this position is that not enough justification for accepting a belief, there” joral disposition of the agent. This is necessary in intends is what s/he asserts. When someone's noral disposition then it may be claimed that he yman character and disposition that can help in nexus between epistemology and morality ‘onthe subject matters. Although relationship before now, one can say that se with the 'Good' in his theory of forms n, you will agree, that the good is not only the se that knowledge exists and of the state of a state of knowledge but something r” (Plato,1956:308). The import of thisAKANDE, M.A, PhD. idea is to show that the 'Good,’ which can be call led virtue, is not knowledge but it helps 1.2 Traditional Definition of knowledge In Plato's dialogue titled, Theae: Theodorus, adjudged to be the Attem| tetus, a student named Theaetetus whose teacher, Most intelligent student, had a dialogue with Socrates, pts were made by Socrates in this dialogue to disprove erroneous and past assumptions of the educated People of Greece and efforts were made to replace these erroneous beliefs. The problem of knowledge especially during Plato's era is the need to overcome some challenges of scepticism, especially, the challenge of the definition of knowledge and the challenge of justification of knowledge claim. in the history of the ancient Greek philosophy the sophists, who were Socrates’ contemporaries, were the first set of sceptics that challenged the existing criterion of knowledge. It was the attempt to provide an-alternative, and as well prove the sceptics wrong that led Socrates on a philosophical adventure that eventually led him into trouble with the educated Athenians. ~ When Socrates asked Theaetetus what knowledge is, his first response was that knowledge is what Theodorus teaches lke geometry, geography, philosophy, etc. The , import of this definition is that what teachers teach students in class and what the For Socrates, Theaetetus had only described tes expected was a definition that expresses was wrong, according to Jim Unah (2008), nthe definiens. in Unah's words:merely succeeded in connectin . : (word) being defi 8 OF linking the term ned to something else (Unah, 2008:03). the knowledge of taste, colour, odour, physical senses become the windows to the knowledge of the external world. Whatever information they project to usis held by us with certainty and assurance. This information becomes the bedrock of our behaviours and how we relate with the “universe. _ Perception as the basis or window to reality is the principle canvassed by empiricists __ who propounded the doctrine of empiricism which stipulates that ‘knowledge has its __ origins in and derives all of its content from experience’ (Velasquez, 2005: 379). Human _ Senses of touch, taste, sight, smell and hearing, underlie the knowledge put forward by ‘the natural sciences like, physics, chemistry, astronomy and geography. Thus, they have __ becomethe veritable tools for discovering truths especially by the empiricists. 7 The problem of perception as the source of true knowledge is that the way object s is relative to each perceiver. Protagoras, a sophist, earlier made a submission ithe wind appears cold to me, then itis cold to me; however, if it appears hot then, itis hot to you’ (Stumpf & Fieser, 2002:32). He concluded that “man is the ill things, of the things that are that they are, of things that are not that they ) proffered by Socrates against knowledge as perception is that it fails to role of memory. Human memory will be useless if perception is when we remember something there is no object or event to builds on perception; it preserves much important information we ‘senses, It also preserves information about our mental lives (Aud) ss past and present events.It flashes them, recalls them the sight of human mind with images and representational : which is the seat of memory, provides the tools for justification reflections or flashes, That is why Socrates believes thatAKANDE, M.A, Pho, ‘at the senses may be the windows through which we acquire beliefs but such beliefs must pass through the test of the intellect or reason in order to become knowledge. Knowing, therefo re, isto be found not in the experiences but in the process of reasoning about them The suggestion on the role of the mind from Socrates triggered Theaetetus to the realization that the attempt to reason or reflect on object of perception can Produce either true judgment or false judgment. Asa result ofthis, he defined knowledge again as “True judgment” (187b). For him, if a man judges correctly a state of affairs either of the past, the present or the future, then he knows. Like previous definitions, Socrates saw the inadequacies of this definition. According to Socrates, if knowledge is true judgment, it is possible for someone to guess rightly about a state of affair. He is of the view that when you guess from no premises or inadequate premises, through wrong or false premises, though the conclusion of this process may be true, you cannot rightly be said to know. The position that reason alone without the aid of sense experience can furnish us with non-empirical and empirical knowledge of the external world is known as rationalism. Some rationalists, such as Socrates, do not insist that reason alone can give us knowledge; they believe that we can acquire true belief from the senses but such fiefs must pass the test ofthe intellect to be qualified as knowledge. sor DeWasttity HRA ON ALOT ocy as he called it, Descartes merely used scepticism as @ means to finding Certain, and was not, therefore, actually a sceptic (Ri chard, 2003:3-5). in How do | know that there is no earth, no heaven, no place and that nevertheless these seem to me to exist just ‘exactly as | now see them? How do | know that | am not deceived every time | add two and three or count the sides of a sphere? (Velasquez, 2005: 369). | possibility of deceit by the physical senses brings about a distortion to true it. However, the issue of deceit by the physical senses is not as potent as the ‘of the mind by an ‘evil genius’ which Descartes introduced into his argument. This ful genius has the capacity to put wrong ideas or a non-existing idea into minds. With this, Descartes took doubt and uncertainty to its extreme. ‘points to the realization that true judgment is not knowledge until one is able to ufficient or how itis related to what we already know. This is because knowledge is an objective endeavour while true opinion is subjective. By the virtue of this objectivity, _with the above insight, both Socrates and Theaetetus agreed that knowledge is true “opinion or true judgment plus account (Plato, 1956:202d). ss ‘end of this dialogue, Socrates appears unsatisfied with the definition of sdge arrived at with because according to him, giving an account presupposes account itself is knowledge. If the account is knowledge, then we need an ‘account. In other words, each account will need a justification aes + is categorized as foundational or the inferential approach to knowledge an infinite regress. jing, traditional Western epistemology took this definitio of attem| infinite segress. Various theories d to prevent the infinit ti Poe coherentism and foundherentism are attempts to nas‘AKANDE, M.A, Pho Meet the prob joni Problem of justification in accepting the Socratic definition of knowledge. 1.3 Traditional Theories of Justification From the Socratic inqui aoe ae Inquiry and his last minute scepticism on the definition of knowleg as 'ed true belief or true belief plus account; the definition of knowledge becam, pen £0 2 structural problem. For Socrates, if that definition is taken, it follows tha, ev justifi 5 ‘ery account or justification will Fequire another account or justification, which shows aregress problem. Traditional epistemology attempted to solve this problem by proposing a theory of Justification known as Foundationalism. It is informative to note that foundationalism, asa theory of justification, is supported by both empiricism and rationalism which are the leading and main theories of knowledge in Western epistemology. Other epistemologists have proposed other various types of reasoning that can escape the regress problem, among others are coherentism and foundherentism. We shall briefly show how they supported the traditional definition, while attempting to avoid the regress problem. 1.3.1 Foundationalism The foundational method is an attempt to answer the holistic question of knowledge certainty put forward by the sceptics. Foundationalism basically concerns itself withthe structure of justification which is fundamentally deductive in nature. This theory has two forms: inferential and non-inferential. The former sees justification as external to the epistemic agent while the latter sees it as internal to the agent. n of justification focuses on perception and the strength of beliefs while 5 assumed that knowledge building is like a house building, res and supe me mect evide com Ojo! fori orethe proposition: “a bachelor is an unmarried male” is self- need investigation to determine if it is true or not.But lief like “Ojo is a bachelor”, one would need to know who. 1e is residing with any female or check the marriage registry beliefs require justification either from a belief of equal status Ifa non-basic beliefs justified by another non-basic belief, such belief to support it. The justification of non-basic belief with infinite regress or circular regress. So, in order to avoid such logy proposed the ultimate support of basic beliefs whose Rnerininatetne regress (Bewaji, 2007:198). Ctive of foundationalists is to achieve certainty. They postulate that ‘or truths or bits of knowledge are specifically privileged starting points ‘development of our knowledge. If we start from uncertainty or denied Rec, the whole structure of knowledge can come crashing down — will be unreliable. It can be interpreted that to achieve knowledge, theory is not without its own flaws. The major criticism of hat itis an arbitrary decision to hold that some beliefs are basic. The, art did they acquire this status? If a belief is not supported by another p e may be unjustifiable. Another issue is the problem of content. Fe erare mostly a priori or arrived at analytically and as such lack content with contents. tion put forward is coherentism. The theory holds that a it fits together with other beliefs within the same system. It but without ascribing special status to any belief. In a ye equal status, and none is more basic or evident than tification with the backing of all other beliefs within that that there are different systems and one must first \gs to and measure its coherence with other beliefsAKANDE, M.A, Pho within it, The justification or non This becomes the ban being wrong. And it is because they cohere. -Justification of beliefs does not come from outside the s 'e of this theory because a system can be coherent while Possible for false beliefs within the same system to be justi 1.3.3Foundherentism The failure of both theories prompted Susan Hack (1993) in her book titled, Evidene and Inquiry:Towards Reconstruction in Epistemology, to attempt a unification of ba foundationalism and coherentism. The view is popularly referred to “Foundherentism” and Susan Hack argues that the relationships among the beliefs more like a crossword puzzle with multiple beliefs mutually supporting each ott Foundherentism actually admits that each belief needs support(s) but denies that tk support is only vertical as in coherentism or horizontal as int foundationalism.Rath both forms of support are necessary, none can be excluded. Although it is ani inclusive theory that admits perpendicular or diagonal supports among beliefs, inclusiveness suffers from the problem of concentrating on beliefs alone without consideration of the role of believers. ‘explained the ‘traditional theories of knowledge and their theo on, there is a need to explain corollary concepts like truth which is the . An epistemic project is always targeted at truth.west Eh TRADITIONAL RESTEMOLOGY In the bid to answer the seemingly simple question, “what is truth?”, the elusive and problematic nature of the concept of truth comes to light. Alll civilizations of the world have embarked on a human search for truth.The quest has been approached with such thirst and zest because “truth has long stood as a symbol for such a variety for our deepest concerns and highest aspirations” (Honer, Hunt and Dennis, 1999:59), In our world today, our relation with truth cannot be over-estimated. “Truth has become a tool to discern between the information that can pass as a body of genuine knowledge and inadequate or insufficient information which may result to falsehood” (Orangun, 2001:71). There has been a strong devotion to the study of truth by Western scholars. This is due to their “conviction that the hunger for truth is one of human kind's noblest passions” (Honer, Hunt and Dennis, 19:59). Plato, for instance, postulates a concept of truth _based on his ultra-realism. He affirmed that “the source of truth cannot be found in material nature because truth must be one indivisible and eternal... truth must deal with the essences of things, with their unchangeable and necessary nature” (Ruch, 1997:192). For Plato therefore, the truth exists outside the human mind, the foundation of truth is itself immutable and eternal and the human mind “contemplated this truth when the soul existed in its purely spiritual condition in the world of ideas” (Ruch, 1997:193). Descartes also concerned himself with the concept of truth. He asserts that “intuition of clear and distinct ideas provide us with indubitable and infallible truth” (Ruch, 1997:175). For him, truth comes from within human beings; itis not imposed from outside. Other scholars such as Aristotle, Kant, Spinoza, St Augustine, St. Anselm to mention a few, also espoused different notions and understanding of truth. Also, there are identifiable theories of truth, like the correspondence theory of rity which explains truth in terms of a relationship between what is said and oe exists in the world; “a correspondence of thought with something outside thought’ (radatiine, 1997:42). It is acommon sense realist approach to truth which Zs proposes # true or false to the extent in which it corresponds to objective reality. An expression o truth is one that states a fact or describes an event as It really is, a fact which aoa independently of the claimant (Honer, Hunt and Dennis. 1999:59). ae ee 2 coherence theory of truth which advocates for consistency and comprehensiAKANDE, M.A, Pho, the examination of the truth of a proj 105 a E exhibited by Proposition.|t maintains that “truth is a pro ® related group of consistent propositions” Honer, Hunt and Dennis, 1999:61). 4 proposition : 'S true if it coheres with other truths already established in a nence is the pragmatic theory of truth which states that the can be defined only in terms of consequence, for them a Curately describes a situation or relationship in which a person ‘© 3 desired result” (Honer, Hunt and Dennis, 1999:62). Clearly the word truth has has b abstr: system. Of equal promi truth of a proposition statement is true “if it ac sara canactin order to achiev Bone through so many modifications and interpretations. It fen demystified and depersonalized. Scholars have introduced “vagueness, action and absolution into the examination of truth” (Orangun, 2001:71). A JAyer for instance, “makes truth the exclusive preserve of Propositions without taking into Sognizance the state of affairs of the case and the perceiver's experience” (Orangun, — 2001:73). This description for Orangun cannot however be accepted, truth ought to be 2 Property of human experience “a link between the perceiver's thought and the reality Of the state of affairs or events of the external world” (Orangun, 2001:71). Truth ought toaffirm the past, present, and future experiences of apeople. __ This work a affirms that humans make truth; it does not exist independent of man. It is outside there that needs to be discovered Rather, it is something we /@ meaningful life and as such, truth in this opinion is not absolute,Ise he started by assuming his own existence and reliability of ended up with a conclusion about his existence and the ability of his apprehend that truth. : ‘corroborated by Thomas Kuhn in his scientific theory of truth that there is no ctive theory (truth) in science because over time scientific theories undergo and amendments. For him, there is no genuine reason for arguing that a new that works is truer or better than the old ones. As a matter of fact, the claim at ‘objectivity is a conspiracy by a set of scientists at a period in history to discredit the theories of others. So, the assumption that there is a method or principle that is scientific, objective and therefore has the capability to expose truth in its entirety is a fiction (Aigbodioh, 1997: 70). 1.5 Sources of Human Knowledge The problem of truth actually took its bearing from the identified sources of acquiring Knowledge. Truth is a representation of reality and reality is apprehended by human senses which serve as the windows to knowledge. These sources of knowledge are Perception, reason memory, testimony and introspection, which house information or reflect them according to the context and environment where the individual finds himself or herself. 15.1 Perception Itis the awareness or apprehension of things by sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste. Perception is also the collection, identification, organization, interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the environment. Perception depends on complex functions of the nervous system and environmental factors, but it seems mostly effortless because the processing happens outside conscious awareness | concerns practical or empirical knowledge, and in the ordinary way no one ink of denying that we do acquire knowledge through perception, and that, ‘seeing is not just believing but knowing, It is not that one cannot be AtAKANDE, M.A, PhD mistaken in what one perceives, one clear something unless what one perceives is in ly can, However, one cannot pe some sense outside there, Within nvention, what is to be accepted asa claim must be perceived as a reality. Knowledss in this area can be acquired by the use of scientific instruments to aid our hysicat Senses in order to avoid errors or for proper viewing. One of the crucial facts about perception is that it is concept dependent, in the sense that ‘we cannot be said to Perceive anything unless we have a concept of the object of perception as an object independent of ourselves.’ (Hamlyn: 1971; 145-163) The problem with this soures ig the tendency the senses have to lead us astray through interest, hallucination and illusion, Since what we perceive ismostly what we have interest in or wished for, 1.5.2Memory tis doubtful if knowledge is possible without memory. This is so because memoryis the store house of the mind. In other words, memory is the recorder of all the events and the attributes we encounter on a daily basis. The discussion of the importance of memory to human life cannot be exhausted. Without memory, man will simply become an imbecile. In fact we carinot talk about human beings with reason or but somehow mysterious link with the past. Gilbert Ryle memory as remembering, as having learned and not teference to the past is a necessary part of the concept of is a condition of experience of an object. In depends on human memory (Hamlyn, 1971:188- ortant to all forms of knowledge: a priori ber in order to relate two or moreand obscurity of the Subject of knowledge are two impediments to personal investigation of some aspect of reality, ifan epistemic agent must be credited or acknowledged as knowledgeable, S/he ought to have chosen an appropriate source(s), method or virtue(s) that is radii by the } belief in question. It does not mean by the above that the agentis the cause of the true belief but that the true belief must not be a reflexive thing. It must not be a product of artificial intelligence that is targeted at smartness rather than knowledge. In other words, Knowledge must be a conscious submission by an epistemic agent. 1.6The Challenge of Scepticism ‘ The problem of knowledge vis-a-vis the problem of perception, definition and justification of knowledge was brought about by Sophists who were contemporaries of _ Socrates. Sophists such as Gorgias, Protagoras, and Thrasymachus engaged in the , ‘enterprise, but it reached its climax with Pyrrho of Elis (365-27). Although not write down his arguments, his views are known through Sextus no wrote about him five hundred years liter. (Zagzebski, 2009:29) a belief about suspending all our beliefs nor is it a claim that no one certain as the sophists proclaim but a claim about keeping mute, “a 4AKANDE, M.A, PhD state that relieves us of the anxiety of having to make judgments” (Zagzeb Scepticism did not stop at pyrrhonism.tt develops through each philosophy though with different variations: from the ancient period to t period of philosophy with philosophers such as Descartes and Hume: different sceptical arguments. Scepticism can be seen as a way of life as Pyrrho. It is also a method as expressed by Descartes in his “Meditation. “It end of a journey in an epistemological discourse as the one Hume demonsti ique of induction; and transverse to the contemporary period Gettier's counterexamples to traditional theories of knowledge. These e to the different strands of scepticism over the years. This underlies the criti scepticism played in the development of epistemology. The first sceptical challenge with the sophists was on the possibility of our to give us adequate information about the external world. This possibility of the physical senses leads to what Zagzebski (2009) called the “Closure of C Argument’, it goes thus:* This is why Descartes is not seen as a thorough-going sceptic, ratherhe is said j used scepticism as a method to arrive at knowledge. rd argument can be labelled “The Regress Argument” which goes thus:For any onp. |know pif and only if 1. lamjustified in believingp : 2. lamjustified in believing p only if |have evidence € that justifies p : 3. Noevidence E can justify a proposition unless Eis justified 4, Eisjustified only if there is evidence E1 that justifies it 5. E1isjustified only if there is evidence E2 that justifies E1 6. E2isjustified only if there is evidence E3 that justifies E2 And this process can go on and infinitum without ending. 7. Therefore, |am never justified in believing any proposition y 8. Hence, | donot know anything. ___ Insumimary, the sceptical challenges bother on the reliability of the physical senses, the nature of truth and the mode of justification. The above arguments pose a serious threat to traditional epistemology. Inthe 20” arnt Edmund Gettier, brought a new twist into the sceptical challenge when he shows that there are occasions when justification has no ‘causal relations to E truth. In other words, one can have a justified true belief p and yet does not know that __ p.lwill refer to Gettier's scepticism as “The Justified True mishap Argument.” It canbe __ represented thus: 1. IfJustified P entails Qand Qis true then Sis justified in believing Q 2. IfPisfalse the justification for Qis till preserved _ 3. IfPisfalse while Qis true then thereis.adisconnectjon betweén PandQ is a disconnection between P and Qin S's mind then knowledge is notAKANDE, M.A, PhD Therefore, it is possible to have justified true belief Q, knowledge The issue here, therefore, is to show how cases of JTB are not cases of ki propounded by traditional epistemologists.One will observe that the conce belief and justification as the criteria of knowledge or major concepts in its d the attempt to make epistemology to be systematic and methodical as scieni the reason why in the quest for objectivity the subject is given little or no holder of beliefs and provider of justification. This work argues that one can belief and justification and still not know if the intention, purpose, consciousness of the subject did not go into the justification process. In ot! objectivity and subjectivity must meet around the individual if reliable knowledge must be achieved. Appropriate moral dispositions like openmindedness, trustworthiness, I cannot be ruled out of justification process or the definition of des will go a long way in exposing the capacity of the i of his\her claim. At face value people or hor t jealousy, pretentiousness, selfishness becCHAPTER 5 METAPHYSICS Akomolafe Mohammed Akinola, PhD Metaphysics is one of the core branches of philosophy — ethics, epistemology and logic are the others. It answers such questions as to what is the ultimate problem of Being and Reality. Simply put, what is reality? The subject-matter (the content) of the discipline has been attributed to Aristotle, but the name (the term 'metaphysics') did not originate from him. In other words, Aristotle originated the organization of what constitutes metaphysics, but not its name. Asa matter of fact, the introduction of the term ‘metaphysics’ was by mere accident. Aristotle called the subject-matter that came to be known as metaphysics his ‘first philosophy’. In 70 BC in Rome, one Andronicus of Rhodes (who was not a philosopher) took it upon himself to edit the works of Aristotle. Inadvertently, he placed this ‘first philosophy’ of Aristotle after the treatises on physics. The subject-matter of physics deals with the physical things. The subjects of metaphysics were then called “the treatise after the physical treatises', which is the literal meaning of 'metaphysics' (meat 9 : __ beyond the physical’). This distinction was to imply that metaphysics es more with abstract qualities than with a scientific observation and analysis of matters. However, because it was termed ‘beyond the physical’, it was interpreted earlyand iar tinier e reaenne vrai ‘supematursl entitiesmetaphysics. In fact, many occult activities are subjects have no relationship with true metaphysics. So, WI interms of these fantastic subjects, they chase away many peopl be interested in the discipline. ie who might othe ered as a ‘science’ of causes. It is a study of first princi True metaphysics is consid ptures its real meaning is: “Itis underlining reality. The definition which vividly ca systematic study of the fundamental problems related to the ultimate nature of real and human knowledge.” With time, metaphysics came to mean the science of being as_ being or the science which studies the essence of being; the ground of being. Why a there something instead of nothing; what is the nature of man? etc. are some of the questions asked by Metaphysics. Hence, it is defined as the study of the ontological ; status of phenomena; the science that studies what is, or what constitutes ultimate reality. In order to determine what constitutes truth, certainty, actuality, etc., the first question the metaphysicians (philosophers) asked was: “whats reality?” ‘ To answer this question, philosophers were divided into the two major schools of thought we have under metaphysics: Idealism and Materialism ,ol of thought in metaphysics holds that reality is mental or immaterial les of philosophers who belong to this school are: Plato, Leibniz, as. He holds that things in —a ° t calMETAPHYSICS Substances, which Leibniz called monads. Rene Descartes Rene Descartes (a French philosopher and math. that reality consists of material and immi immaterial/spiritual/soul is superior to matter. that man is made up of two substances: an incorporeal soul that bears the faculties of intelligence and wisdom - mind, which he says is composed, of a non-physical substance; and the body, which is Physical. He id self-awareness as distinguished fromthe brain, tomind/body problem. lematician), on his own Part, argues faterial substances, but that the hrough his methodic doubt, he argues lentifies mind with consciousness and whichis the seat of intelligence, leading Through his methodic doubt, Descartes doubted everything in existence (including his own existence) but could not doubt the fact that he was thinking. According to him, itis Possible to doubt virtually everything in the universe, but one cannot doubt the fact that one is thinking withoyt contradicting oneself, since it is not possible for one to doubt without thinking. Hence, he arrived at his dictum: cogito ergo sum ~ “I think, therefore, l exist.” 4 From this, he asked the question as to what he was using to think. Hivetissriiertiaee was his mind. This way, he established the fact of the existence i his mind oe ona \ thinking being. This also made him to establish the fact that the attribute ofthe hike thinking. At this stage, he was not sure yet whether he had body or not (he needec also prove that methodically). ngis composed of'a mind anda body; which other? What are the attributes of the body utes of the mind are different from e interaction takes According to him, granted that a human bei one of them is primary and superior to the i and what are the attributes of the mind? inthe ae ew the attributes of the body, how do they interact? For , placeinthe pineal gland at the top of the brain. ’Dr. Akomolafe Mohammed Akinola However, many Philosophers of Descartes’ time were not satisfied with his expl of how the interaction between the two substances could be possible. At the e all, Descartes raised his hands up in despair, saying that he could not go further, explanation of how the two substances interact. Thus, even though he creat mind-body problem in philosophy, Descartes could not solveit. This has since led formulation of different kinds of the theory of interaction. George Berkeley According to George Berkeley on his own idealism, things in the world are ide mind, they are not material things, but immaterial ideas in the mind. The exis anything depends on it being perceived. This led to his dictum: Esse est percipi to exist, isto be perceived).METAPHYSICS kn i 4 lowledge about reality, what is the most important tool needed?” ‘ i i An attempt to answer this question led to two sub-schools 'n metaphysics known as ratio lis pt empiricism. nalism and 1. RATIONALISM Rationalism is the belief that in order to Capture what constitutes reality, issufficient. It holds that all knowledge begins and ends with reason. Here the senses are not importantin the acquisition of the kind of knowledge af reason alone itisheldthat at we cannot doubt. Examples of rationalist Philosophers are Plato, Rene Descartes and St. Augustine. According to a rationalist like Plato, knowledge is acquired when the intellect contemplates the eternal truths in the world of forms. For him, the soul is animmaterial Substance which pre-existed before it comes to this world, where it was familiar with and knew the form of all things. But its contact with matter (body) at birth made it to forget what it used to know in the world of ideas. Inits daily interaction with the world, the soul is reminded of what it used to know in the supersensible world. For Plato, knowledge is about remembering of pre-natal ideas acquired in the world of forms. Rationalists, such as Descartes and St. Augustine, like Plato, maintain that when human person reaches the age of reason, the innate ideas which he gets from birth enables him to learn and acquire knowledge. These innate ideas are in our minds. So, forthem, reason alone plays a primary role in the acquisition of knowledge — the application of following mathematical method, can furnish clear and certain reason alone, knowledge (meaning that experience does not play any key role in gaining knowledge). 2. EMPIRICISM Empiricism is the belief that all knowled) ‘ ¥ f this belief, for us to acquire knowledge of : through our senses — sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste. The school reje aintains that the human mind at birth rasa (completely blank). It ideas and hi ind at birth isa tabular rasa (completely ). and not reason or ini the foundation of innate ideas, is ige begins from sense experience. According to an object, we have to perceive that object cts innate means that sense experience, knowledge.Or. Akomolafe Mohammed Akinola 3. REALISM Here also, realism attempts to mediate between rationalism and empiricism. According to realism, let them (rationalism and empiricism) quarrel; reason and senses are complementary means of acquiring knowledge. Some knowledge depends on reason, some on sense experience, while others depend on personal experiences and extra- sensory perceptions. Immanuel Kant is also prominent here CAUSE AND EFFECT Cause and effect (causality) is the necessary connection of events in their series. Itisthe external connection between phenomena, in which whenever one exists, the other must necessarily follow, e.g. the heating of water is the cause of its turning into steam. In other words, cause and effect are related concepts that result from the action of a cause and its effect, So, we must not confuse causal connection with the temporal sequence of phenomenon. Some people may say the cause of war was the comet ora solar eclipse or some other natural or social phenomena that occurred before the outbreak of war. This is fallacious. Cause should be differentiated from occasion. Occasion here is an event which immediately precedes another event and makes it but does not necessarily determine it. The thesis of causality is that there are conditions, which if present, the event must necessary occur. be traced to the natural cause? Is causality an action be caused for it ta be free'? These are 7 ,etimes, we observe that some people, in taking certain thei seer vs ¥ their orientation, economic beliefs, religions, environmental Se Wonder Ifwe arereally free o forces and circumstances beyond our contro| Our actions are determined by These opposing features of man have led to the formulation of two diametrically Opposed theories about the nature of human actions — Determinism and Libertarianism or indeterminism DETERMINISM The view that for every effect, there is a Cause, means that every human action (an effect) must have a cause. To be causedis to be determined. Since human actions have Causes, human actjons are determined. If human actions are determined, human actions are not free. Since human actions are not free, man is not a and if man is not a free moral agent, he should not be held responsible for his actions. Determinism can also mean pre-determinism, as when being determined by God free moral agent IMPLICATIONS * The immediate implication of determinism is that the doer of the action should not be control over is responsibl held responsible for the action since a force which he has no control over le for the aetion. When reminded of the implications of his position for man’s moral and riences as wel human not nd: and condemnation, legal ions of commendafion and condemn exp as our humai ns of s well ‘approval and disapproval, punishment and reward, the determinist takes Universal ignor: hi Pc the claim that indeterminists and the rest of mankind ance, that is, indeterminists and the rest o' igno! , 1, 65Or. Akomolafe Mohammed Akinola invented moral norms and laws contrary to their true nature to be deterministic, — UBERTARIANISM, Libertarianism is the view that man is totally free; that human actions are * Causes; that to admit causes to human actions is to admit that human actions free. In support of their position, libertarians argue: 3 “Even determinists question thei * children for wrong-doings and sometimes punish them. If the children’s actions are, : seen to be free, if we do not believe that the children could have behaved otherwise, it would be inhuman to praise, blame, punish or reward people, ifmanwere notfree, UNIVERSALS AND PARTICULARS Another set of recurrent, metaphysical problems is Universals and Particulars, Philosophers have no Problem with the particulars. This is because we can see Particular things all over in the world. The problem with philosophers is that howdowe determine the universals? Howdo we arrive at general names? Do universals or general names have independent existence or are they abstractions from Particular things? We Perceive concrete, individual things with our senses. How is it that these concrete, individual things have general names or terms denoting them? When weseea monkey, itisan eee asaiz individual, concrete monkey that we see, we do not see monkey in general. We see a rmonkey with a definite size, iter teBia ie 8 ‘METAPHYSICS : - of the particularities of thi _ idea of things, such that we cant. Ings. These images constitute our general or universal ‘alk of table without ‘thinking of this orthat table, or we OS apie hout thinking of such particularizing characteristics as height, ce, colour of the skin, nature of! hair, etc. P According to Aristotle, universal ideas of thin, process of abstraction. For him, universal particular things, gs are gotten from particulars through a depend their existence on individual or universal So, rsal is a class name, denoting many things, e.g. animal, ; whil Particular is denoting an individual thing like Aja Abi ch nk oe , yi, Abiodun, Akomolafe, etc. Platonism ‘ the PI. i i For the Platonists, universals are real entities which have their separate and independent existence from Particular things. So, particulars are but participation of the essences in the universals. The Platonists also argue that universals do not only exist independently of particular things, they also have their objective existence outside the human mind. Nominalism The nominalists reject the Platonist notion of universals and hold universals to be nothing than labels to designate many different things that share common attributes. Till now, the exact nature of universals has not been resolved PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD Another metaphysical problem is the proof of the existence of God. The God question is an inevitable question becau importance of God/man relationshi rational need of God. Throughout history, . different reli ns - relate to God. : ee pleston went on US television to debate on ick Co| 1948, Bertrand Russell and Fr. Fredric nce of God. Both (one theist, the other, agnostic), did agree on one definition distinct from the world and creator ofthe world. se we cannot do without it because of the weight and p. Man has one inescapable existential as well as over ninety-nine percent of humanity has asaSupreme Personal Being, > %Dr. Akomolafe Mohammed Akinola So, if God is considered to be a Supreme Being, to atthe same time deny his Cxistence a case of sef-contradiction. How could something that does not exist be at the time defined as Supreme Being? The reasonableness of this God is the reasonableness of providing a rationally ally satisfactory een of reality both in totality, Particularities ang conclusive foundations. Metaphysics understood as a systematic investigation into the whole of reality in its foundations, expressions and ultimacy, has the God explanation, projectas one ofits most important chapters. In the God issue, proof of God's existence is key. Theism is the Position that there is Gog ~St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, St. Anselm, G.W. Leibniz are some of the philosophers in thisschool. ‘Atheism is the school of thought that there is no God. This position demands for empirical proof—Friedrich Nietzsche, Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx belong totthis school ther hand, agnosticism or skepticism is the school that maintains that it is not bout God's existence, e.g. Bertrand Russell 1y ang PROOFS FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE the existence of God can be approached under the following ents. dunder popular arguments as follows the argument could be raised that almost ° ce of Gad, even though they may dit and attributes. Those who put forwarc ‘ God exists. Among those who put forware d Critus. G. N. Joyce considers th! ce of God, However, philosophers like Frederi God, ev {b)-Rel Argum people that 0 proph nume! indivic Gode The fe The r not le mant enco thep anct (0.4 Argu mar only inte whe (@) The wit Dut ane dic Itiis an argument for the existence of God used by . For example, the encounter Saul had witha force mr ‘way to Damascus {to persecute the Church); the ro Mohri 8s Allah's spokesman, and his other ic | These miraculous encounters of God with many E es and places were Considered by manyto be real. Therefore, accounts could be true, but philosophically, they are subjective. these encounters of God by individuals are personal, and so, could y to objectivity Concerning the proof for the existence of God for all if an overwhelming majority of people are involved in such th the supernatural entity, that may suggest some level of objectivity of € existence of God because several of such accounts would support one from the sciences . sciences is the proof that the very existence of science shows that discover the intelligibility in nature (through natural laws), whichis ble if one imagines an intelligent author of the laws, the origin of the God. Therefore, God exists. It was put forward by D. E. Trueblood, t comes from Immanuel Kant's view that every human being . | duty (that is every human being has conscience). i, According to Kant, this is nsciousness of moral ai nal imperative of doing good and avoiding evi founded as an internal logic of amor reas i jes ant haracterized by duties al oe e cannot be a moral.agent (w allaw-giverinman'sheart. Itisa dd responsibility for the good of all. hho has ‘time a moral route to God. OnDr. Akomolafe Mohammed Akinola conscience) without an Absolute Moral Being putting the conscience there, Kany, argument is to the effect that if moral dictates are commands of Conscience, there mus, bea commander to command them. So, the commander is God Kant also argues that if there are natural laws, there must be a law giver, who is none other than God. However, those who reject the moral argument for the proof of God's existence allege that it imposes God on mankind to explain what could be socially and naturally explained. That to assume that God is a Supreme Legislator is arbitrary. (e). Argument from Teleology or Design According to the argument from teleology, one discovers in the universe an embedded order, design and purposefulness. In nature, especially in living organisms, there is an ordering of means to end. Things are so ordered and arranged that one sees the handiwork of some primordial reality responsible for the order, end and purpose. The harmonious functioning of natural events, times, seasons, movements of the planets, etc. all point to an intelligent master planner who is responsible for their origin, and continuity. The argument is to the effect that the ultimate, intelligent ns isnone other ethan God. David Hume says that God as designer-mind does not explain order, for, nind of God itself needs explanation. In his empiricism, he rejects that it is borne out of our experiential ‘and movement of things in the (b).F What prod argur prior (0). F Beir existi realit wher Ther now. So, v reali exist poss unca (iii) 0 Godi noth ment If Go of, fo there The aswe (ott out of (i). te) _ Ais caused is caused by another. In the universe, we notice that things are (caused) by others, the new Products also cause other things, etc, The isto the effect that nothing can be an efficient cause, otherwise it would be itself, whichis impossible. The first efficient cause is what people call God. Ce tingent and Necessary Being of our daily experience are contingent; they come and go. They can stop they are possible. Their reality is not necessary, but possible. However, if all ‘we experience are mere Possibilities, it is possible that there was sometimes they were not, when Nothing existed, since nothing has the necessity to exist. re, there would now be nothing if that situation persisted. But things do exist ry that is itself outside of the possible. This reality is a necessary Being whose has a necessity that gives existence to all other realities that have only ‘OF contingent existence. This necessary cause of all contingent reality, itself , non-contingent, and necessary, is God. h nothing greater can be conceived (thought). But that than which must exist not only mentally, in idea, but also extra- (St. Anselm of Canterbury). ly, he would not be perfect or be the greatest we think is both great and really existing in reality, and this latter one has both existence and grandeur. greatest object of thought exists in realityr Dr. Akomolafe Mohammed Akinola asserts the supremacy of soul-man: that both physical and spiritual are fea) Metaphysics gives room for this. (iii) It frees us from dogmatism, indoctrination and i a US to think very deeply or encouraging us to look for the fundamental principles thay underline reality.